Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
The Ayatollah Buggeri

Car Insurance Anecdotal

Recommended Posts

A relative had his Jaguar stolen from its parking space on the roadside outside his house in a leafy village inhabited by upper middle-class commuters to Leicester last week. It happened overnight and the police are pretty certain that it was stolen to order.

A couple of nights ago they were round for drinks with someone a few doors down, and explained what had happened. Their hosts' reaction was to opine that it served him right for not keeping the car in his garage overnight, and to express dismay that if my uncle put an insurance claim in, the result would be increased premiums for everyone in the village (i.e. given that there are probably only around 50-60 households in the village, one claim for the total loss of a £20k car would be a black mark against that postcode and thus would hit them all). 'So are you trying to suggest that I should just eat the loss of a £20k car?', my uncle asked. 'Well, I wasn't quite putting it that strongly...', the neighbour replied.

This is the first time I've heard of this phenomenon - people trying to dissuade their neighbours from making insurance claims out of fear for their own premiums. However, I suppose it's just a logical extension of NIMBY-inspired opposition to planning applications in the anticipation that the development would lower the value of their property, campaigning for lower speed limits, greater police presence, etc. etc. Seems that there is no limit to some people's selfishness.

Edited by The Ayatollah Buggeri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I was about 5 when Thatcher was in power, but isn't that 'no society' quote the most mis-quoted/interpreted on here?

One step away from Godwin's Law IMHO and dis-credits the user entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maps.police.uk

but unless they're offering to buy him a new car he should have reported it ASAP.

Some policies are void if you don't report things within a set time limit. 4 hours maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I was about 5 when Thatcher was in power, but isn't that 'no society' quote the most mis-quoted/interpreted on here?

One step away from Godwin's Law IMHO and dis-credits the user entirely.

As if I cared.

I'm keen to understand the correct interpretation however if what seems obvious is not so.

Can you explain what she meant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I was about 5 when Thatcher was in power, but isn't that 'no society' quote the most mis-quoted/interpreted on here?

It's a favorite of leftists everywhere, I can only assume that they've never actually read the interview.

There is no such thing as society

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.

Edited by Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if I cared.

I'm keen to understand the correct interpretation however if what seems obvious is not so.

Can you explain what she meant?

See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if I cared.

I'm keen to understand the correct interpretation however if what seems obvious is not so.

Can you explain what she meant?

Why would I waste time explaining if you don't care? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A relative had his Jaguar stolen from its parking space on the roadside outside his house in a leafy village inhabited by upper middle-class commuters to Leicester last week. It happened overnight and the police are pretty certain that it was stolen to order.

A couple of nights ago they were round for drinks with someone a few doors down, and explained what had happened. Their hosts' reaction was to opine that it served him right for not keeping the car in his garage overnight, and to express dismay that if my uncle put an insurance claim in, the result would be increased premiums for everyone in the village (i.e. given that there are probably only around 50-60 households in the village, one claim for the total loss of a £20k car would be a black mark against that postcode and thus would hit them all). 'So are you trying to suggest that I should just eat the loss of a £20k car?', my uncle asked. 'Well, I wasn't quite putting it that strongly...', the neighbour replied.

This is the first time I've heard of this phenomenon - people trying to dissuade their neighbours from making insurance claims out of fear for their own premiums. However, I suppose it's just a logical extension of NIMBY-inspired opposition to planning applications in the anticipation that the development would lower the value of their property, campaigning for lower speed limits, greater police presence, etc. etc. Seems that there is no limit to some people's selfishness.

I wonder where he told the insurance company he parked it. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I waste time explaining if you don't care? :huh:

I don't care about my credibility. Why would an anonymous web poster care about his credibility, it would be rather ridiculous don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a favorite of leftists everywhere, I can only assume that they've never actually read the interview.

There is no such thing as society

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.

All rather amusing from someone who earned her living off the back of other people's taxation.

File in the nonsense bin with every other politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about my credibility. Why would an anonymous web poster care about his credibility, it would be rather ridiculous don't you think?

Pancake-bunnyfirst.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a favorite of leftists everywhere, I can only assume that they've never actually read the interview.

There is no such thing as society

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.

Thanks for posting that, I had indeed never read the speech.

It's interesting because I fully agree with what she says in the first paragraph and the 'too far' argument. But the last statement does not fit in the context. There is a huge difference between saying there are abuses and saying the whole system should be destroyed. I think the obvious stands.

BTW, the 'lefty' stereotype. I can sympathise with the desire to annoy people with it, but it's weak and lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A relative had his Jaguar stolen from its parking space on the roadside outside his house in a leafy village inhabited by upper middle-class commuters to Leicester last week. It happened overnight and the police are pretty certain that it was stolen to order.

A couple of nights ago they were round for drinks with someone a few doors down, and explained what had happened. Their hosts' reaction was to opine that it served him right for not keeping the car in his garage overnight, and to express dismay that if my uncle put an insurance claim in, the result would be increased premiums for everyone in the village (i.e. given that there are probably only around 50-60 households in the village, one claim for the total loss of a £20k car would be a black mark against that postcode and thus would hit them all). 'So are you trying to suggest that I should just eat the loss of a £20k car?', my uncle asked. 'Well, I wasn't quite putting it that strongly...', the neighbour replied.

This is the first time I've heard of this phenomenon - people trying to dissuade their neighbours from making insurance claims out of fear for their own premiums. However, I suppose it's just a logical extension of NIMBY-inspired opposition to planning applications in the anticipation that the development would lower the value of their property, campaigning for lower speed limits, greater police presence, etc. etc. Seems that there is no limit to some people's selfishness.

If I was your uncle I'd go round the guys house when he gets his new car and tell him how much nicer the new one is, how it runs better etc etc etc. That should put a smile on his face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Towed away or keys fished from the house?

I presume the former, because he didn't mention the keys having gone missing.

And I also presume that the insurer knew it was parked by the roadside: their garage is too small for the Jag to fit in, and so his wife's Focus lives in it. So it's not as if it was roadside-parked that night unusually - it's always there, which is presumably why the thieves knew where to look for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume the former, because he didn't mention the keys having gone missing.

And I also presume that the insurer knew it was parked by the roadside: their garage is too small for the Jag to fit in, and so his wife's Focus lives in it. So it's not as if it was roadside-parked that night unusually - it's always there, which is presumably why the thieves knew where to look for it.

Just wondering as loads of people say their car is parked in their driveway when it isn't. Although - how would they actually know. It's not there any more to tell !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A relative had his Jaguar stolen from its parking space on the roadside outside his house in a leafy village inhabited by upper middle-class commuters to Leicester last week. It happened overnight and the police are pretty certain that it was stolen to order.

A couple of nights ago they were round for drinks with someone a few doors down, and explained what had happened. Their hosts' reaction was to opine that it served him right for not keeping the car in his garage overnight, and to express dismay that if my uncle put an insurance claim in, the result would be increased premiums for everyone in the village (i.e. given that there are probably only around 50-60 households in the village, one claim for the total loss of a £20k car would be a black mark against that postcode and thus would hit them all). 'So are you trying to suggest that I should just eat the loss of a £20k car?', my uncle asked. 'Well, I wasn't quite putting it that strongly...', the neighbour replied.

This is the first time I've heard of this phenomenon - people trying to dissuade their neighbours from making insurance claims out of fear for their own premiums. However, I suppose it's just a logical extension of NIMBY-inspired opposition to planning applications in the anticipation that the development would lower the value of their property, campaigning for lower speed limits, greater police presence, etc. etc. Seems that there is no limit to some people's selfishness.

Perhaps your relative could suggest that the neighbours should have a Neighbourhood Watch scheme and spend their nights on patrol around the village, in order to keep its crime statistics and insurance claim history squeaky clean, instead of wasting their time going for drinks at each other's houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.